Van Jones asks Santorum about the current GOP frontrunner for the 2016 presidential nod, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.). Apoplexy ensues. The "Republican Party is not a libertarian party" says Santorum.

"Do you agree with his ideas, are you going to support Rand Paul?"

"There's diversity in the Republican Party," Santorum hesitated, but Jones pressed further: "Is he the new face of the Republican Party? Is this your leader?"

"Well, no, he's not my leader, I can tell you that for sure," the former senator scoffed. "His father and I had some disagreements during the last campaign."

Jones then asked him outright: "If a libertarian like him becomes the leader of the Republican Party — gets the nomination — would you vote for them?"

"First off, I don't think that will happen," Santorum asserted, "because the Republican Party is not a libertarian party, it is a conservative party. And it will nominate a conservative, and not a libertarian."

Then just to drive home the difference between brand-ecch libertarians and conservatives, Santorum calls for increasing the minimum wage by a buck and tells Strickland (a total bum as governor the Buckeye State) that Obama's request to bump it more than that is a bad idea.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

The media just pays attention as a way of trolling. I see your point. I am not sure however that dignifying him with an answer won’t do more harm than good because it would accord him more importance than he merits. That is of course exactly what the media wants to accomplish by constantly talking to him like he matters.

How about Rick win an election before anyone pays any attention to him? Who does Santorum speak for other than himself? Notice where this was said, CNN. This is just CNN trolling. Invite a has been on the air so you can make it look like the Republican Party is divided and get the story off the Democrats.

And lastly, the GOP establishment is constantly bitching and moaning about how the big meanie Libertarians and Tea Party people are always just “attacking other good Republicans.” Okay, I guess they are going to be angry at Santorum for attacking Paul, right?

Well, I was referring to the attitude of establishment Republicans complaining that we dare to attack the likes of Santorum, who are actually liabilities for the party.

But I agree with your general tractic there. Keep attacking social cons until we either take over the Republican party or destroy it. The social cons need to be driven out of civilized discourse if for no other reason than their existence gives progressives an excuse to keep changing the subject to sexism and homophobia.

Exactly, the So Cons are like drowning victims who are trying to pull others under to keep themselves afloat even though its just delaying the inevitable. When I was in SAR school they teach you to incapacitate these assholes to minimize the damage they will cause to the other victims. Where does this loons cash flow come from, surely we can beat him and his ilk with the free market just let the think progress guys know who he gets his cash from and have them unleash their hordes of morons to attack him for his beliefs. the enemy of my enemy

They invite Rick Santorum on for the same reason Piers Morgan invited Alex Jones onto his show. They know he can be relied on to say stupid things and paint everyone who opposes the Democrats as dangerous lunatics.

“the Republican Party is not a libertarian party, it is a conservative party. And it will nominate a conservative, and not a libertarian.” ——————— I’ll remember this when it comes time for the next whine-fest about libertarians “wasting their votes” by not supporting the Republican candidate…or how a third-party candidate is “stealing votes” from the Republican (because all your votes are belong to us).

Too fucking right. I’m sick of hearing about how I wasted my vote by voting for a Libertarian who agrees with 90% of my political views because there was a Republican running who agreed with 10%. Rick Santorum and his ilk are just Progressives who prefer blowing money on defense contracts. They don’t give two shits about personal liberty or fiscal responsibility, and if you think you’re going to wind up with a smaller, more limited federal government under a Republican you’re ignoring forty years of American history.

“First off, I don’t think that will happen,” Santorum asserted, “because the Republican Party is not a libertarian party, it is a conservative party. And it will nominate a conservative, and not a libertarian.”

Actually…. It is pretty conservative. Conservatives got duped when they elected prog-lite Bush II, much like they had been when they elected Bush I. Bush I didn’t have an ongoing war and a particularly retarded opponent for his second term election, which is precisely why he lost.

Clinton won because he and his media operatives succeeding in painting him as a centrist. To be fair after getting shellacked in the ’94 mid-terms he changed course significantly.

Obama won election because A. he’s the shiny new black man, and B. both of his opponents were almost indistinguishable from him policy-wise.

The thing about both Pauls is that they ARE socons, Rand especially so.

However the difference between them and every other socon on the block is that their libertarianism comes first and they have no desire to ram their social beliefs down anyone’s throats.

In some ways that may help Rand becuase he won’t scare the socons off by appearing to be pro abortion but he can’t really be attacked on the issue by the left because even if he was elected he’s not going to really try to do anything about the issue or even talk about it. Sure they will probably try to paint him as a raging culture warrior who just wants wimmens back in the kitchen barefoot and pregnant they way they do with every other Republican but unlike all the others they are not going to have a history of votes and statements backing up those claims.

me too….its maddening…truly maddening that i have so many fucking stupid people that outnumber me and think that democracy is a weapon for use against minorities disgusting wretched humans… good thing i live in “flyover” country hopefully they can continue to completely ignore us and stay the hell out of our mountains.

It is unsettling because he was the only person who went out and talked to and tried to express the concerns of the middle middle and lower middle class. Santorum didn’t get votes because he hated the homos. He got votes because he is and was an economic populist and the rest of the GOP field in 12 was too stupid to even talk to working people. In the worst economy since the 1930s, the GOP candidates were so stupid they didn’t bother even trying to put out a populist economic message. They ceded the field to Santorum. That is unlikely to happen again, I hope.

Yeah cuz Obama isnt totally spending trillions fighting a bunch of poor kids in thatched together boats with WW2 firearms just so that his buddies can continue having their overseas slave labor in eastern africa. …..nope nothing to see here move along peasant Glad to see we are still using our military to protect the jobs we shipped overseas, many jobs that were held by the working class, jobs that the fathers of those serving lost to crony government and false capitalism as our manufacturing base was stripped from under us. good thing we protect those who ruined American manufacturing…

It is unsettling because he was the only person who went out and talked to and tried to express the concerns of the middle middle and lower middle class.

I thought it was Ron Paul, Gary Johnson and, on a rhetorical level, Herman Cain who did that, unless your definition of middle class are union members who think that they’re always right and that their non-union boss is always wrong.

Usually you sound like the Republican version of Tony. Do you know what you get when you mix left-wing economics with social conservatism? National socialism.

Reading comprehension fail. Just because John noted what happened, doesn’t mean he endorsed the opinion. There’s more than one way to “address concerns” and most of the people in those levels are economically illiterate enough to go for populist rhetoric.

I responded to exactly what John said. He didn’t give specifics and is by far softer on frothy than anyone else here.

He also has a major soft spot for certain socially conservative, economically leftist Democratic voters. I won’t say who they are exactly but alot of them voted for Bush in 2004 because of gay marriage.

No, Ron definitely talked different from the rest of the field but his economic speeches were much more intellectual and difficult than mere populism.

Gary and Herman did have a touch of economic populism to their messages but Gary was summarily ignored by the media and Herman’s political naivety and skeletons caused him to flame out too early in the process to matter. Had Cain managed to stay in the race it is a good bet that a large portion of Santorum’s votes would have gone to him.

Dave Mustaine also tried to reason with the IRA when he was on tour in Ireland ending up being chased out of town with molotovs and rocks. some people dont realize that they are better playing guitar than playing politician. and i fucking love Megadeth

I’d stop calling Rand Paul a libertarian. He stands for at least a few unlibertarian positions and it would suck if people started associating libertarianism with those positions. “Oh, you’re a libertarian huh? Why are you in favor of a border wall? Why are you against gay marriage?” Etc.

Gay people were getting married before anyone considered legal recognition a possibility. There was no force used in the redefinition of the word. Your continuing to repeat your counterfactual assertion is not going to make it any truer.

Even if it were true, it was already the case. Not everyone agrees on the “traditional” legal definition of marriage. Many Catholics, for example, don’t consider re-marriage after divorce to be legitimate. Are you also opposed to remarriage after divorce?

So the libertarian thing to do is to initiate government force to define the word the way you like it, and give civil rights lawyers another excuse to initiate government force against people and businesses?

Since when did anyone require government permission to love each other and raise a family together? if you decide to spend the rest of your life with a person how does a government issued scrap of paper legitimize it?

…oh yeah its all about money and taxes I forgot, love is irrelevant to these people. If my straight marriage before my creator gets along just fine without government intervention or authorization, a gay marriage does as well…or are you claiming they are different?

the solution for illegal immigration, and the only possible one is for a base national income to replace the welfare system in a way that all welfare is abolished, only citizens issued a social security number would be able to collect their base national income. universal healthcare needs to be gone completely. if we accomplish these things and only allow persons of value to become citizenry illegal immigration will be pointless, and no wall would need to exist as they could not create the problems they currently do. in fact most stupid people will die off as a result of their own poor choices leaving a stronger leaner smarter citizenry to be free finally

His position on borders is not libertarian, it’s based on purely consequentialist arguments not based on any libertarian principle. But Ron is mostly very libertarian. I think it is better to use “libertarian” as an ajective in these cases.

seeing as Anarchist and Statist are on opposite sides of a vast spectrum of ideals i think its clear that the Libertarian Philosophy leans in favor of a more anarchistic approach meaning more individual responsibility and less government intervention. Ron took a very logical approach to the current situation seeing as abolishing the welfare state isn’t as easy as keeping out those who would further complicate the welfare state problem though the only problem with illegals is taxpayer funded handouts

I haven’t really read much about Rand. Is it possible that he -personally- favors a border wall while maintaining a stance against the Federal Government building it? (ie: states that want a border wall can have one etc).

Not to start an argument, but could you expand on how that would work and why that would be a good splitting of the baby? It seems like the Feds would be solely or primarily responsible for enforcing immigration policy at national borders under any construction of our current governmental system.

It’d be cheaper to abolish the welfare state that lures them in. consider the following if you have NO money (like the federal govt); do you? A)put up an expensive fence and surveillance cameras with flying robot death squads to keep the neighbors kids out of your pool or B) take your pool down and save the cash and work next year of not having to maintain a pool

I don’t see why anyone is mad about this. As Lady Bertrum articulated above, this makes Rand look even more desireable to moderates, minorities, and wimminz. The most effective campaigning Santorum can do for Rand is endorse any of the other candidates.

This is true. Actually as a long time political watcher I have been extremely impressed with Rand’s posturing (even is some of it is contrived). Yeah, you have to got to Bob Jones U and suck up to them. Israel too.

wouldn’t have minded living my life without that image in black and white running through my head, my mentally undressed Ayn had a well groomed bush until this day. masturbating will never be the same again!

Its about the primary. Rick Fucking Sanotorum actually attracted a larger percent of the GOP base vote than Rand’s dad. Although I do hope that Rand has enough money to just keep running. Making it to late March with enough money to run ads in the big states while guys like Santorum implode is key.

Ron and Rand may have philosophically similar views, but Rand has an advantage over his dad in some key regards: political tact and acumen as well as his priorities and emphasis in his campaigning.

Ron was anti-war, but occassionally caged it in rhetoric that was more common to the Left and thus anathema to GOP base voters. Rand knows how to sell non-interventionism as a decidedly conservative philosophy. Ron would rant about the Fed (a position I largely agree with him on), Rand will mention the Fed but won’t make it the highlight of his campaigning.

It’s sad that 25 years ago, when I was a College Republican, there was friendly debate between the libertarian branch and the more dyed in the wool conservative branch. The common ground was fiscal conservatism. Since then, as the Republicans finalized their shift into being the conservative branch of the Democratic Party, and shifted to fiscal liberalism to go with their social conservatism, the Republicans became actively hostile toward the libertarian faction – and pretty much booted us to the curb circa 2003. They had their “Contract With America” flowing like fire-water in their veins, Medicare Part D to float onto the backs of the taxpayer-serfs, and libertarians within the circle of Republicans were no longer tolerated. Of course, now that the Republicans have screwed the pooch with the their last moments in the sun, they try and sweet talk libertarians back into the fold. Of course with the flowers comes the note as to when to schedule the rape session (their best attempt at romance). Stuff like this simply reveals the crude treatment we are to receive in their tender hands.

For there to be a GOP of any kind down the line, they have to do a major shift away from fiscal liberalism and social conservatism. They need to embrace real fiscal conservatism and at least set aside their superstitions and find the necessary disinterest in social matters. They don’t have to give up their ghosts and fairies, just don’t make them the epicenter of a party’s viewpoint. Economic liberty will give them more than enough room for their superstitions, as a well constructed separation of Church and State should afford. In short, economic/monetary/fiscal policies trump EVERYTHING ELSE and a solid party should be able to be founded on such from Republicans, Libertarians, and even some Blue Dog Democrats. At least that’s the only hope left. Without it, the Progressive Fascists of the Democrats will reign unopposed.

I know this is my last foothold on my spiral to insanity, without knowing that there are at least 30 others in the world that are willing to use their fucking brains for more than the 2 mins in between TV shows, I would have gone insane. I’m glad to have found all of you as well.

I think that Rand Paul would qualify as a social conservative. He simply returns to the tradition of libertarian-minded conservatives working *together* – the tradition loosely described as “fusionism.”

It was when the libertarian/SoCon alliance began falling apart that the Republicans started sucking much worse than before.

In contrast, there isn’t much of a history of libertarians influencing a major party in alliance with SoLibs.

Not all SoCons are for enhanced state power. Some are philosophically convinced that virtue and freedom go together. Others may in theory support various statist policies, but in the current political climate they are on the defensive vis-a-vis progressives who want to use state power against them, making SoCons at least temporary allies of limited-govt types.

And remember the whining about how the Religious Right embraced unfettered capitalism, contrary to the teachings of Jesus the Socialist.

Again – “[I] find it difficult to understand why today’s Christian right wing has enveloped the teachings of capitalism over the teachings of Christ and indeed have allowed capitalism to supersede Christ in matters of concern for the poor and needy.”

“The Family Research Council, the evangelical advocacy organization founded by James Dobson, has been dipping into its war chest to defend Republican Governor Scott Walker’s efforts to curtail collective bargaining for public-sector unions….

“Another recent FRC lecturer offered a related interpretation of the Bible’s calls for social justice. “Christ does not necessarily condemn the rich per se,” said Mark Caleb Smith, the director of the Center for Political Studies at Cedarville University. But, he added, the good book does at times condemn the poor: “The Old Testament, especially in the Book of Proverbs, ascribes poverty to oppression, but also to other things like laziness, the love of sleep, the love of pleasure, the love of food, the love of wine. And so even Proverbs says, you know, sometimes you may be poor because of your behavior.””

I’m gonna go out on a limb here and say that capitalism has lifted more people out of poverty than Jesus’ methods ever did.

Of course, I can see why JC would be an attractive model for fans of socialism–you take a couple very scarce fish and loaves of bread, redistribute them enough, and BAM, there’s suddenly plenty for everyone!

“”The purpose of government is to protect the life, liberty and property of all individuals, by punishing evildoers and encouraging the righteous.” (America’s Providential History p.20) On p. 128-129 the book discusses the “Biblical” principles of the Constitution proposed by Samuel Adams, “Father of the American Revolution.” The third prinicple is the “right to property,” which is one of the “rights of Colonists as Christians.”

“”Scripture defines God as the source of private property…Ecclesiastes 5:19 states, ‘For every man to whom God has given riches and wealth, He has also empowered him to eat from them’…Also in I Chronicles 29:12, ‘Both riches and honor come from Thee.” (pps 187-188)”

The only way we’re getting to that kind of post-scarcity technology without Jesus coming back and going into the food distribution business is through massive technological advance. . .which is much more likely to happen with a market economy.

The theocrats and the social Darwinists have a lot in common, and the key to politics is finding common ground. You have total farcical incompetence on economic policy. You have the deep-seated shared purpose of shitting on minorities and poor people at every opportunity. You have a shared propaganda bubble you never venture out of. You all reject science you don’t like on a whim. You’re almost exclusively white and mostly male. The only real differences you have are how much to kneel before Jeebus, how much you want to blow up people in foreign countries, and how much you like to imprison people for smoking weed. But you are totally a viable alliance, an unbreakable bond of complete unseriousness.

I read Atlas Shrugged, and I suggest you all reread it now that you’re adults and have become acquainted with more serious schools of political philosophy. I’m not saying I went into it with a totally open mind, but the screeching fascism of it isn’t exactly subtle.

Reason just uses Google’s search engine and the output is less well organized. Once you’ve searched for something you can use “Search Tools” to narrow down by date, which is handy if you have a general idea of when the comment was.

That’s an awfully specific rebuttal to a criticism I didn’t make. It doesn’t matter what her characters’ backstories are, because they are fictional, in a fictional world filled with all-good or all-bad people (like children’s stories), yet she wanted readers to take it seriously as political philosophy. Rule #1 in my book is that any political philosophy has to acknowledge the qualities of the real world.

Rule #1 in my book is that any political philosophy has to acknowledge the qualities of the real world.

Haaaaaaaaaaaa ha ha ha ha! That’s a riot!

Your political philosophy revolves around government being the solution to all problems, and when the government is corrupted by the evil corporations the solution is to give more power to the government so it can control the corporations that control it and when that doesn’t work the solution is to give more power to the government so it can control the corporations that control it and when that doesn’t work the solution is to give more power to the government so it can control the corporations that control it and when that doesn’t work the solution is to give more power to the government so it can control the corporations that control it…

Your political philosophy revolves around government being the solution to all problems

No it doesn’t. Straw man. Lazy thinking. You’re stupid. In tight competition with sevo as the dumbest motherfucker here, and that’s quite an achievement because there’s a lot of fucking dumb here. I really have no interest in talking to either of you anymore.

What’s funny is that despite Tony declaring that he’s taking all his marbles and going home to telly Mommy what a meany you are, he’ll be back in this thread about twelve hours from now, after he’s sure everyone else has left, so he can shout retorts to an empty room and get “the last word”.

He does this in just about every thread I’ve seen him post in, dude clearly has some self-esteem issues.

Well, what’s wrong with being an idealist? Anyway, my rebuttal is to a criticism you made, which was that there’s a fascist, classist attitude to AS which just isn’t there. AS is not about a small clique of rich people trying to gain domination. Oh, if you skim through it with that preconception you will find it but if you look past that and actually read you’ll find that her heroes would never have existed under fascism. Fascism denies the individual the means to improve themselves. The heroes of AS had respect for those who had honor and integrity regardless of their wealth.

Is that what’s going on with Rand? I’m pretty sure she meant what she wrote and wanted to apply it to the real world.

The heroes of AS had respect for those who had honor and integrity regardless of their wealth.

I accept that Rand didn’t make wealth itself a virtue, as many of her villains were wealthy. (I do wonder if many of her followers don’t make wealth = virtue a shorthand for their beliefs.) No, it’s not a money-class-based fascism, but a sort of simpleminded Nietzsche, a war between superior people and inferior people (no gray areas–none), defined by productivity or parasitism. This I have loosely called a form of fascism, and it is exactly the same thing that has played out in the realms of totalitarian butchers time after time. That is the impulse behind her philosophy.

What happens to the moochers? She doesn’t give a fuck and neither do libertarians. She sees them as enemies, not people. Liberals see the needy as victims, and that all humans deserve some measure of dignity. But all the considerations of gray areas are neatly disposed of when you invent the rules of your fictional world and then watch how things play out.

The problem is it’s good vs. evil (a bad story) and that she thought it had some connection to the real world.

Holy shit, you can’t be real! Rearden et al actually did care about the “needy” and less well off, and worked harder and harder to satisfy them, and were shit on by the “moochers” for their efforts, just like you shit on producers. You have it exactly backwards, as usual.

Notice the usage of the term “Social Darwinists” by the left whenever they want to bad-mouth competition and markets, when in fact “social darwinism” is a term invented by SoCons at the end of the XIX Century to bad-mouth natural selection.

You have total farcical incompetence on economic policy.

Correct peg, wrong hole.

You all reject science you don’t like on a whim.

You mean like rejecting radiated food and GMO’s? Oh, I see, you were talking about rejecting a myth created under the guise of science.

You’re almost exclusively white and mostly male.

An accusation that seems to imply that only those arguments posited by a disabled transgender minority single mother carry any weight. Which would ipso facto make your own arguments invalid, by exclusion.

That’s the extent of your rhetorical skills, Tony. You’re definitively still in High School!

Well I’m using the term social Darwinist to refer to people who think the best possible society is one that promotes parentage and luck as the most important factors in one’s success, i.e., libertarianism.

I’m not saying white males are always wrong, I’m saying a major political group consisting only of white males has a serious problem.

Well I’m using the term social Darwinist to refer to people who think the best possible society is one that promotes parentage and luck as the most important factors in one’s success, i.e., libertarianism.

Which means, ipso facto, you have no idea what the term means or what the concept entails.

I’m not saying white males are always wrong,

Yes, you did.

I’m saying a major political group consisting only of white males has a serious problem

That one falls under the category of “opinion.” Even if what you said is true (which is not, since there are plenty of Latino libertarians as well – you idiot) it would still not be evidence of a “problem”.

Yes but my political coalition consists of strong majorities of all other groups. If I found myself in a group of whites only, I would be very concerned, because it either means only white people are rational, or it means I’m in a room full of white supremacists.

Yes but my political coalition consists of strong majorities of all other groups.

You have no political coalition. You are a schmuck just like us. You are not one of the elite and never will be. You accuse us all the time of being in the pocket of “the rich” but the only one I ever see carrying water around here is you.

Then just to drive home the difference between brand-ecch libertarians and conservatives, Santorum calls for increasing the minimum wage by a buck and tells Strickland (a total bum as governor the Buckeye State) that Obama’s request to bump it more than that is a bad idea.

And this is why the GOP will continue to alienate people. They aren’t so much the “conservative” party as much as they are just “we’re against everything Democrats are for.”

Do you honestly think blacks and hispanics are pro-gay rights? Hell no. They are very socon, but the Democrats will buy them off by appealing to their wants. Democrats will talk out of both sides of their mouths. There are gun rights Democrats. There are somewhat fiscally moderate Democrats. There are socially moderate/conservative Democrats. The Republicans drank the Neo-Con and hardcore SoCon Kool-Aid for too long and just want to say “no” to almost every single issue that Democrats stand for. Republicans have really tried hard for this party purity crap, and they treat libertarians like “turds in the punchbowl.”

There have been recent large shifts on gay marriage among blacks, and Latinos support it by a large majority. But I don’t disagree with the premise that Republicans, despite themselves, only seem to be losing by sheer stupidity, despite the fact that the country as a whole rejects everything they believe. The deck is really stacked in their favor that much.

The US is a relatively conservative country as Western democracies go, but nevertheless as a whole it is more liberal, and will continue to get more liberal, than the most liberal Republicans today. The problem with putting all your chips on old people is, well, obvious.

There have been recent large shifts on gay marriage among blacks, and Latinos support it by a large majority.

Linkey-link, please. Otherwise, don’t blame people for thinking that you pulled that one out of your very arse. I am willing to bet that gay marriage is gaining traction among Latinos but not among blacks. That I will have to see for myself.

But I don’t disagree with the premise that Republicans, despite themselves, only seem to be losing by sheer stupidity,

Indeed, they’re losing for not being libertarian at all. That’s stupid. The Demo-rats will lose for being their usual economically-illiterate, prevaricating, intellectually-dishonest and immoral selves, of course – that much is inevitable.

Try again, this time speaking as an adult and not some WND pond scum, and I’ll provide links. Or you can just google it. Why is googling so difficult for you people? Do they tell you you’re not allowed in rightwing bubble camp?

In 2001, roughly one-third of both whites and blacks expressed support for same-sex marriage. Today, 54% of whites support same-sex marriage, as do 43% of blacks

It is EXACTLY like I said [” I am willing to bet that gay marriage is gaining traction among Latinos but not among blacks. “], and I am using your own links: Latinos are coming around to gay marriage (at the same proportion as whites according to PEW), whereas a majority of blacks (57%) still oppose it or are ambivalent about it.

Precisely, I was saying “There have been recent large shifts on gay marriage among blacks, and Latinos support it by a large majority.” Didn’t say a majority of blacks supported it (though other polls show higher numbers). But the trend among all demographics is inexorable. If Republicans want to be viable in the future they have to figure out other tactics besides beating up on minority groups and hoping there are enough bigots out there to vote for them.

Which brings me to the unstated point of all this: my what company you keep!

That’s possible, but your counterargument to Matrix’s (that Latinos and blacks are favoring more and more gay marriage therefore they can’t be SoCons) is still fallacious. Gay marriage is not the pivot point for a socially-conservative person, as many conservative-minded people would regard gay marriage as a very conservative concept compared to gays frolicking in Turkish baths (which is the argument posited by Justin Raimondo, that the fight for gay marriage is an attempt to stifle gay eroticism). Your counterargument is not that compelling (it’s in the best of cases HALF-compelling because most blacks are still not sold on the gay marriage issue).

From day one, Santorum’s schtick has been that the GOP ought to abandon limited government and free enterprise in favor of hard line social interventionism. The man’s a snake-oil salesman pure and simple. If hardline conservatives want to pooh-pooh libertarians for not toeing the lion on social issues, they ought to be just as quick to dismiss this clown.

Although I don’t see eye-to-eye on many libertarian issues as i’m a big Liberal, I did vote for Gary Johnson in 2012. I feel that Gary Johnson was on the LEFT of many of Obama’s policies and I was willing to give a left-leaning Libertarian a try.

Libertarians aren’t going to get progressive votes if they remain in the GOP. As painful as it may be, they really need to sway independents and open-minded liberals to the Third Party.

Although I don’t see eye-to-eye on many libertarian issues as i’m a big Liberal,

You’re a big idiot. “Liberal” means friendly to liberty. Modern “Liberals” are the children of the old Progressive socialists who became disillusioned with Wilson’s government and then simply went nuts after trying to reinvent themselves. The spectacle has not been pretty ever since.

Libertarians aren’t going to get progressive votes if they remain in the GOP.

The GOP is also riddled with Progressives, so it is not like libertarians are losing sleep over it.

They’re mutually-exclusive terms, Alice. You can’t have equality in a free society, and you can’t have freedom in a society where equality is the goal. We’re all born with different skills and abilities.

“And those without requisite skills and abilities should fuck off and starve.”

That’s where we differ. Neither Alice nor any other liberal means full equality, but definitely equality under the law and equality of opportunity to the extent they can possibly be achieved. Which to a liberal and any other sane person sounds like a necessary component of any meaningful definition of liberty-for-all.

By the way, forced equality =/= well-fed. Just look at North Korea under Juche.

Neither Alice nor any other liberal means full equality, but definitely equality under the law and equality of opportunity to the extent they can possibly be achieved.

That’s not what Alice or you mean. Equality under the law is a given in a society where there are no protected groups, whereas equality of opportunity implies protected groups (otherwise, equal opportunity becomes a meaningless term). Both are MUTUALLY-EXCLUSIVE terms. You can’t have equality under the law and things like Affirmative Action or anti-discrimination laws at the same time. Either a person is EQUAL to another under the law or he/she is not. You can’t have it both ways.

and equality of opportunity to the extent they can possibly be achieved.

And in attempting to achieve such nebulous ends, Tony is willing to steal. And since he never defines what “to the extent they can possibly be achieved” means, he will never be satisfied thereby continuing to promote theft indefinitely.

What they all would do if a libertarian leaning Republican won the nomination (likely with 35% of the vote in a 3 or 4 candidate race), is cry foul and run someone like Giuliani or Bloomberg as some sort of “conservative” savior as an independent.

Even though they all cry and moan now about Libertarians wasting their votes if they go 3rd party.